Scientific Method: You better believe it matters

I once, a few years back, was posed a question: "What do you think the most important scientific discovery ever was?"

Without hesitation, I replied, "The scientific method, of course."

This response got me looks, quiet chuckles, and mutterings of, "Seriously?  Out of all the scientific stuff, that?   Over, like, lasers? nerd."

Years later (because I don't hold grudges, and didn't spend the next few days crying into a bathtub with a bucket of ice cream or anything) this is my reply.  It's long winded and has some required reading before we dig into the subject, but I do stand by the scientific method as the most important scientific discovery to have ever happened, and further- the scientific method is the single most important discovery to happen in the history of humanity, and the only way in which we will be able to solve some of the hardest problems that plague our world (or just the United States of America) today (see: global warming, economic slump, massive wealth gap between the rich and the poor, etc).

First things first, let me get all the obvious schematics out of the way.  I know someone is going to be calling foul on technicalities (because the silly little technical details will be all they can grasp with, mentally).

Obviously, the scientific method (or SM for short) required quite a bit of human progress before it even became able to be considered.  [ed: please don't confuse SM with S&M.  Wait, damnit, I made the correlation easier.  Forget I typed that.  But don't, because don't confuse them.]  You could run a very weak (but sound) argument that any of the technologies or revolutions in understanding that happened before SM are more important than SM because with out them, no SM.  Fine.

The (also unstable) counter argument is that you don't, in fact, know what SM requires to be discovered, so you can't list other discoveries as pre-requisites.  Discoveries in real life don't actually work like a technology tree from the Civilization series.  Its why two men can both independently discover calculus at about the same time, and spend a good chunk of the rest of their lives trying to discredit the other.  Which is why calculus symbols seem to be totally random.

Got that? Great, now that we can safely (sorta) say that you can't judge a discovery based on what was discovered before it, its time to go through part II of stuff we need to do before getting to the good stuff: read this article.    But don't just read it-- you'll need to ponder and at least acknowledge its conclusion.  I didn't say accept-- if it really cuts you to the core that the stories you listen to affect you on a subconsciousness and fundamental level, then you don't have to agree.

But you do have to get behind the idea that the conclusions might be true.  It is on you to disprove them, and if you can't, then you either:

A) need to work harder in your disproof/counter proof
B) deal with the fact that this article may, in fact, be true.

Under no circumstances are you allowed to pick:
C) brush the article off because it conflicts with what I believe about myself and pretend like I didn't read it

And you absolutely are not allowed to even think about picking:
D) get personally offended by the article, decide that is is the villain and start actively crusading against it, proof or no proof be damned.

If you pick D, by the way, the article proves its point.  C may also prove the article's point, but its more roundabout and complicated.  Either way, if you pick C/D, you won't get any more out of this.  You've made up your mind, and no amount of logic I can show you will change that.  Ever.  Go home, brew yourself a nice cup of tea, sit down, and try to piece out why you're so depressed all the time.

I want to draw attention to A/B-- note how both these options are the only correct way to interpret new information that may conflict with your knee-jerk reaction to the article.  Also notice how this is basically mimicking the scientific method, more importantly, how the scientific method deals with conclusions.

I'm going to skip the part of this that tells you what SM is and how it works.  You've all been through grade school science, you know it.  If you don't, go back to working on your homework, buster.  Mother will be in by 8:30pm to put you to bed, so if you want to do anything fun tonight, you better get cracking.

Conclusions from an experiment, according to SM, draw two responses- the experiment confirms your hypothesis, test again or the experiment rejects your hypothesis, test again.  Now replace hypothesis with "preconceived beliefs", experiment with "article" and test again with "find proof" and suddenly, we have a very clear model as to how to go about dealing with new information.

If you're willing to buy into the fact that we have notions about everything before we get information it (and, if you're more than five, you do, so you better), then this boils down to:

get new information --> agree --> find backing material

or

get new information --> disagree --> find backing material

In the event backing material can not be found, then you need to change how you view the new information, or search harder.  I want to stress here- searching harder is always an option.  Enstien hated quantum mechanics and spent his entire life rejecting the idea (as far as I know anyway, I could be wrong.  Enstien is a hotbed of misquotes).

He also spent his entire life trying to prove it wrong.  He ended up being unable to-- the Hesienburg uncertenty principle stands to this day.

But, look at all this takes out of new information.  You're not trying to fit things into a narrative structure, you're not trying to anthropomorphize your data into good guys and bad guys.  There is just information, what you think about it, and backing up your claim.  That's it.

It's neat, clean and simple, and entirely removes all the crazy bullshit where you build a filter between yourself and the world, and you try to get the world to fit.  The world either won't fit (and then you end up with things like a fast food chain having a stance on gay marriage) or you'll have to do all sorts of absurd things to make it fit (like oppose gay marriage based on the fact that we use the word "marriage", but you'd be fine if they used any other word, like "civil-companion-joint-love-venture" or something).

It works for personal problems too-- stop trying to see all of your ventures as uphill struggles of some bold hero going against the odds and more in terms of the SM.  I'll use weight loss as an example:

I'm trying to loose weight, but today I found out despite all my efforts, I've gained a pound.  This is absurd, I disagree with this-- I've been working so hard to loose weight!  But, when I reflect about it, maybe I'm eating more calories than I think I am-- HOLY SHIT, A DOUBLE QUARTER POUNDER HAS WHAT?!?  Ok, lets not do that and try the experiment again-- this time, I won't get a "tiny snack" at McDonalds, no matter what their commercials say.

Sometimes it works against you too-- I wanted to run a post a while about how hacking the power grid was crazy, based on how I disagreed with an article that claimed it possible.  But when I went to get my own research done to counter it, I found that, hey, holy shit, hackers could totally disrupt the power grid on a terrifyingly large scale.  Balls.

Needless to say, that post was never used and I needed to apologize to someone for laughing at them.  It was a humbling moment.

It all boils down to: information, stance, attempt to back that stance.  There is another huge upside (despite the fact that it takes out all the story-telling bias bullshit):
You always have a plan, or a goal.

With an SM-based world view, your intake of information is active, rather than passive.  You challenge what you're told, and actively search for an interpitation of information that fits the way things actually are.  But when you map it back on to your own life, you're no longer searching for meaning in what you do.  You're no longer trying to live up to the monstrous expectation that you're a hero in some great story, and that what you do will change the world.  There is no troublesome quest for purpose, no great crusade to embark upon.

There is just information, your stance, and trying to resolve your stance against that information.  Or, maybe putting it a different way:

Just the current life you are living, how that makes you feel, and what to do about it.

Aristotle wrote that the unexamed life wasn't worth living for a human being.  He also wrote the only way to find happiness was to contemplate life all day and that tall women were always prettier than short women.  As many of the ancient Greek philosophers, he gets personal bias tangled up in objective analyses, but he was, in fact, on to something.  You need to be able to objectively view your own life in order to get the correct reaction from it.

Step away from the ideas of personal obligation when it comes to life goals.  There is no way to win at life- the only obligations you are required to fulfill are the ones you set out for yourself, which you are allowed to change.  If you're honestly happiest living as a bum off of welfare, then shit, why are you still on the Internet?  You've got some food stamps to collect.

And that's the lesson for today, folks.  I'm writing again on a regular basis, after several months of needed downtime, I'm back, bitches.